e_dawg
Storage Freak
uda,
Forgot if this was discussed already, but have you tried image stacking as a way to increase DOF without bothering with T/S lenses? I've tried it with decent results to increase resolution and reduce noise, but haven't tried it for the purpose of increasing DOF.
Forgot if this was discussed already, but have you tried image stacking as a way to increase DOF without bothering with T/S lenses? I've tried it with decent results to increase resolution and reduce noise, but haven't tried it for the purpose of increasing DOF.
I assumed Uda was looking for perspective correction (shift) in the 24mm range. There is generally enough DOF. The 45 TSE is somewhat in between in tilt vs. shift utility, whereas the 90 TSE is primarily used with tilt to increase DOF. But who knows the logic.
ddrueding
Fixture
Just playing around mostly. I was hoping to bring out more details in the clouds and the lake reflections, also fiancée likes over saturated colors and other non-representative stuff (not my style, but she likes it).
Gilbo
Storage is cool
Check out Helicon Focus. I've seen it recommended in quite a few places despite the fact that it's such specialized software.
Edit: I'm so used to Wiki markup from using a TiddlyWiki for organization that I keep doubling up the damn square brackets with the BBS markup! Every single post I do it...
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks for the link Gilbo. I remember hearing about that software, but hadn't remembered the name.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Fully aware of stacking technique. Royal PITA, IMHO...there are software solutions on the PC side, but not on Mac OS X that I'm aware of (there is reduction of DOF software, but I don't care about that). Already have the TS 24/3.5 that I needed, just don't have the body to use it on. TS are relatively easy to use, even handheld, already played with a rental in a local store on a 30D body, as well as 5D, as already mentioned in my thread on the subject.
I take several shots with the TS, pick the ones I like best. No Effin way I'm going to stack, no flexibility when composing shots like you can get when it only takes one, for each angle or range of exposures, shutter speed, ISO or whatever, when using the lens designed to make this easiest. Software tricks, are a tedious, less flexible solution...for those who only want to take an occasional large DOF shot. I'm looking to use the TS for more than one or two shots, and I want as much capability and flexibility without having to lug around a friggin huge/heavy 4x5.
Full review of 450D, still seems way over priced, bet the 5D mkII comes out before the fall.
That's what I say ^^^
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-Rebel-XSi-450D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx
I'm still looking at the 24-125mm capability of the pocketable Panasonic
http://www.have2have.co.za/product/...-10MP-Digital-Camera-with-5x-Wide-Angl/54731/
on screen sliders to manually adjust shutter & ap, wtf?
Then again, given the oh so accurate rumors on PBay, the new 1D mkIIIn, will be FF & have HD video capability, 1st in a dSLR...whoo hoo!
http://www.photographybay.com/2007/11/13/canon-1d-mark-iiin-or-iv-rumors/
Man, if that Sony A900 with the best Live View & highest resolution, was only released sooner, it would rock the entire dSLR market, more than Scott McCellen's conveniently released just now, "tell-all book" about his tenure as WH Press Secretary for the Bush Adm.
Sony A900 at Sub-$2000 Price Point
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/05/28/sony-a900-at-sub-2000-price-point/
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/01/13/sony-a900/
So yeah, where's my more compact version of the Nikon 18-200, T/S capability, F2 or faster please... <$1k, is that so much to ask
?Thanks Gilbo, software designed to work on both M$ & Apple Mac OS X; will look into download of the demo, but I already have the 24mm/3.5 TS, so stuck with Canon and looking for a body. Now new promotion from Canon, and additional $50 that can be 'stacked' lol, onto the $200-300 for the 40D & 5D, if you are a current owner of the Rebel series. Means you I could by a 450D, play with it for a month while registering it with Canon, then return it to CostCo for full refund, then buy a 40D w/$250 total in rebates, and get it for just $100+more than at 450D. And then on July 20th Canon will release the 5D MkII for $1,800, lol.
Yeah, PITA, but so is panoramic montage software, which gets you images with a WA or ever better w/TS lens, that you couldn't other wise get...unless you use a super WA on a FF sensor, and DxO Pro software, Ken Rockwell swares by it...and you need a more powerful computer than me *new* 5yr old TiBook with only of slow 1GB RAM.
Next year, after they (Canon, Olympus, Sony?, Nikon) put out that <$1k FF dSLR I want
. If *they* could just leverage nanotechnology to these micro pixel sensors. Was reading thread on Fred Miranda, guy spend $26K per 6MP Kodak dSLR in 2000, so I figure it will take till 2016 or there abouts before I get the Olympus OM1 sized FF dSLR with all the features I want, ISO 12.8k images with the grain pattern) of Kodachrome 25 slide film (ASA 25), 4k res HD video too, FW6.4GB/s port and laptops with 2TB SSD's that have 1TB/s RW rates. Technology moves way too slowly for my preferences.Excuse my (slightly
incoherent) rambling...1:50AM on the westcoast, not usually up in the middle of the night
ddrueding
Fixture
ddrueding
Fixture
Stupid PhotoStitch can't handle 10mm shots and won't let me override. I have to actually change the EXIF data to at least 20mm before it will even try.
ddrueding
Fixture
Looks like my 20D has gone belly-up. Error 99 with constant shooting. It also snaps off a few any time I add/remove a lens, open/close the battery compartment, insert a battery, open/close the CF door, add/remove the CF card - even when the camera is off. The only event that doesn't cause this effect (for obvious reasons) is removing the battery.
I've googled for everything. I've swapped lenses, batteries, and CF cards. I've cleaned contacts in the battery compartment and lens interface. I've checked for bent pins in the CF slot.
Sure, I was looking at the 40D, but I don't want to part with this camera just yet.
Help?
I've googled for everything. I've swapped lenses, batteries, and CF cards. I've cleaned contacts in the battery compartment and lens interface. I've checked for bent pins in the CF slot.
Sure, I was looking at the 40D, but I don't want to part with this camera just yet.
Help?
Gilbo
Storage is cool
It should still be under warranty right? Canon has very good warranty/repair service from what I understand. I hope you can get it fixed.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
I'm sorry to hear that, David. Send it to Canon. They will charge you to repair it, of course, but it's still a very capable camera and unless it's something truly nasty, worth fixing for sure. Obviouly I can't speak for Canon USA but Canon Australia's repair service has been very good in my experirence.
Gilbo, David bought it from me ~ 6 months ago. I bought it new around the end of 2005 or maybe very early 2006, so it's a few years old now.
Just for the record, I've sent quite a few cameras and lenses to Canon over the last few years. My gear gets used a lot and leads a hard life, so I can sensibly expect to have a few issues from time to time. Umm ... there was:
500/4 dropped and broken. Canon Sydney repaired it for a couple of hundred dollars. (Phew!)
20D blown shutter (not Dave's, this was the older one). Blown after wearing out with lots of actuations. Cost $400 with Canon Sydney. I still have this 20D and use it regularly. Usually lives in my bag with either a Canon 10-22 or a Tokina 10-17 fisheye on it. Because of the dust problem (it's the only camera I own without a self-cleaning sensor) I use it for the task where I am least likely to want to change lenses - you'd be surprised how versatile the 10-17 fish is; with that mounted I can usually get away without a conventional UWA.
1D III needed the sub-mirror fix. Under warranty. Came back from Canon Melbourne cleaned and with firmware updated too.
Older of my two 40Ds just stopped working one day while still under warranty. Turned out to be dirt in the on/off switch. Canon Melbourne said that they do not cover this under warranty (seems a bit strange), but they repaired it at no charge anyway as a good will gesture, also cleaned it and updated the firmware.
All four items were returned promptly and worked perfectly afterwards. So, in short, I think Canon Service are a pretty good outfit.
Even if you buy a 40D, David, get the old girl repaired. A second body is something every photographer should have.
Gilbo, David bought it from me ~ 6 months ago. I bought it new around the end of 2005 or maybe very early 2006, so it's a few years old now.
Just for the record, I've sent quite a few cameras and lenses to Canon over the last few years. My gear gets used a lot and leads a hard life, so I can sensibly expect to have a few issues from time to time. Umm ... there was:
500/4 dropped and broken. Canon Sydney repaired it for a couple of hundred dollars. (Phew!)
20D blown shutter (not Dave's, this was the older one). Blown after wearing out with lots of actuations. Cost $400 with Canon Sydney. I still have this 20D and use it regularly. Usually lives in my bag with either a Canon 10-22 or a Tokina 10-17 fisheye on it. Because of the dust problem (it's the only camera I own without a self-cleaning sensor) I use it for the task where I am least likely to want to change lenses - you'd be surprised how versatile the 10-17 fish is; with that mounted I can usually get away without a conventional UWA.
1D III needed the sub-mirror fix. Under warranty. Came back from Canon Melbourne cleaned and with firmware updated too.
Older of my two 40Ds just stopped working one day while still under warranty. Turned out to be dirt in the on/off switch. Canon Melbourne said that they do not cover this under warranty (seems a bit strange), but they repaired it at no charge anyway as a good will gesture, also cleaned it and updated the firmware.
All four items were returned promptly and worked perfectly afterwards. So, in short, I think Canon Service are a pretty good outfit.
Even if you buy a 40D, David, get the old girl repaired. A second body is something every photographer should have.
Stereodude
Not really a
Please tell me that's stitched. The geometry in that shot is so bad.
Stereodude
Not really a
Make sure you deal with Canon directly and not a Canon authorized service center.
Back when I was in High School I had my nearly brand new EOS Elan IIe in to an authorized service center 3 times in a row. I don't recall what the original problem was, but each time they said it was fixed and my Dad and I would go to pick it up and something else would be wrong with it. One time the built in flash wouldn't pop up, another it wouldn't read the ISO code on the film correctly. Finally after 3 strikes there were out, and I had it sent in to Canon. It came back working correctly from them.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Oh, I didn't see your post until just now, Lunar.
I picked that example for no particular reason except that the 300/2.8 IS is regarded as a very, very fine lens. I have never used one (though that's probably the next lens I will buy). Nevertheless, I understand that the big white primes are all fairly similar in this regard, so I took my observations with the 500/4 and sort of pasted them in.
I'm sure that you are right in what you say (not the sort of thing that Lunar Mist gets wrong). Three things lead to me making different observations. First, I don't have a full-frame body, all mine are 1.6 crop or 1.3 crop, so now that you remind me of it, I never see the actual corners of my lenses (except for EF-S ones). Second, the sort of subject I use long lenses for tends not to care about corner performance - mostly, if I've got things right, the corners are just burred out background - so I'd be unlikely to ever notice it. And third, there are the trade-off benefits from shooting wide-open, in particular increased shutter speed. In real-life situations (at least the sort that I mostly see) I usually expect to get better results wide-open than stopped down a bit, but no doubt that's because I'm getting either higher shutter speeds or shooting at a lower ISO. Any loss of sharpness is swamped, in other words, by other benefits. With all that said, I seem to be shooting stopped down to f/8 or even f/11 a lot more lately with the 500/4 and the 100-400, simply in order to increase my depth of field.
I picked that example for no particular reason except that the 300/2.8 IS is regarded as a very, very fine lens. I have never used one (though that's probably the next lens I will buy). Nevertheless, I understand that the big white primes are all fairly similar in this regard, so I took my observations with the 500/4 and sort of pasted them in.
I'm sure that you are right in what you say (not the sort of thing that Lunar Mist gets wrong). Three things lead to me making different observations. First, I don't have a full-frame body, all mine are 1.6 crop or 1.3 crop, so now that you remind me of it, I never see the actual corners of my lenses (except for EF-S ones). Second, the sort of subject I use long lenses for tends not to care about corner performance - mostly, if I've got things right, the corners are just burred out background - so I'd be unlikely to ever notice it. And third, there are the trade-off benefits from shooting wide-open, in particular increased shutter speed. In real-life situations (at least the sort that I mostly see) I usually expect to get better results wide-open than stopped down a bit, but no doubt that's because I'm getting either higher shutter speeds or shooting at a lower ISO. Any loss of sharpness is swamped, in other words, by other benefits. With all that said, I seem to be shooting stopped down to f/8 or even f/11 a lot more lately with the 500/4 and the 100-400, simply in order to increase my depth of field.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Thanks, Stereo. I'm not sure that there are any authorised service centres in Australia apart from the actual Canon ones. Noit for cameras, anyway. They certainly have authorised 3rd party printer repair places, but not (so far as I know) for cameras. With only 20-odd million people, perhaps it's not something they feel any need for.
Will Rickards
Storage Is My Life
You can see a ghost of the right side of the center part of the building.
So it does appear to have been stitched or overlayed or something.
Stereodude
Not really a
Yeah, I saw that and figured as much, but I just wanted to clarify.
Correct. I mainly use the 500/4 around f/5.6-8, but of course it is fine wide open other than the usual light falloff. f/11 is slightly worse. The 100-400 is good in the center but not very good in the corners. I only use it for wildlife where the corners are usually background OOF. f/8-11 is desirable where possible, though I'll go 2/3 from wide open when necessary. At first it appears to be more usable as wider apertures on an APS-C body, but that is the folly of the crop mentality. The 100-400 tends to suffer from copy variation, probably from alignment issues. I've had three copies and still have two.
Correct. I mainly use the 500/4 around f/5.6-8, but of course it is fine wide open other than the usual light falloff. f/11 is slightly worse. The 100-400 is good in the center but not very good in the corners. I only use it for wildlife where the corners are usually background OOF. f/8-11 is desirable where possible, though I'll go 2/3 from wide open when necessary. At first it appears to be more usable as wider apertures on an APS-C body, but that is the folly of the crop mentality. The 100-400 tends to suffer from copy variation, probably from alignment issues. I've had three copies and still have two.
That is a classic 20D shutter failure.
ddrueding
Fixture
Please tell me that's stitched. The geometry in that shot is so bad.
Whoops. Uploaded the wrong one. Now my internet connection is so slow it fails the upload.
ddrueding
Fixture
ddrueding
Fixture
Thanks for the info, I'll get that fixed when I get home. Any idea on the cost? I would go buy a 40D right now, but from what I can tell the warranty wouldn't apply in the states? There also doesn't seem to be an official Canon presence here? Canon.com doesn't include a location in Russia, and Canon.ru doesn't seem to have a link with Canon corporate.
ddrueding
Fixture
Looks to be ~$180 for just the shutter, and ~$350 for the shutter, SQ assembly, and cleaning. People are talking about this happening every 70k or so?
What is an "SQ Assembly"?
What is an "SQ Assembly"?
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Why would you spend that much money fixing an obsolete body? Just buy another one of Tony's hand-me-downs
ddrueding
Fixture
Why would you spend that much money fixing an obsolete body? Just buy another one of Tony's hand-me-downs
I don't think he's tired of his 1D-III yet
. I'll certainly buy a 40D when I get home (unless anyone here is willing to sell me a used model). But I'll likely fix the 20D as well, it would be nice to have a spare body for larger trips.fb
Storage is cool
I think you'll end up in Russia (canon.ru) if you click at "Canon North-East Oy" on the global Canon web page, Finland is also listed as "Caonon Oy" instead of "Canon Finland". Canon should have an international warranty, but ask them if you're not sure.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Well I did! And have never regretted it: the 20D was and still is an outstanding camera, more than capable of delivering superb image quality, and different from the current models only in details that are, in the final analysis, just that: details.
What is the difference between a 20D and a 40D?
- A very decent 10MP sensor vs probably the best 8MP APS-C sensor ever made. The 40D delivers no actual, real-world image quality improvement over the 20D - indeed, while I have no complaints about the 40D, I generally prefer the 20D images. 8MP is, for APS-C, bang on the sweet spot.
- A bit faster shutter (no big deal)
- Bigger raw buffer (no big deal unless you do action photography)
- Bigger LCD (couldn't care less)
- Dimmer, more blurry LCD (20D is better)
- Different menu structure (most prefer it, but I actually find the single long menu on the 20D, with it's intelligently configured JUMP button points, superior
- My Menu - handy feature on the 40D
- ISO in viewfinder (handy)
- ISO on the wrong bloody dial! (infuriating!)
- Better metering (so it is said - seems the same to me)
- Better viewfinder (but not a lot better - worth having but no biggie)
- Better AF system (so it is said - it probably is better, but if so the difference is small)
- Live View. (does anyone care?)
- Self-cleaning sensor (big advantage - indeed the only "must have" 40D feature, IMO
- Highlight Tone Priority - useful, but no biggie
- Can't think of anything else at the moment, probably forgot some stuff.
So, in summary, a 40D gets you a self-cleaning sensor (which is a godsend) and a whole stack of pretty minor stuff. In the main, it doesn't get you better pictures.
I still use my "old" 20D regularly since I spent $400 to have the shutter replaced (Dave has my "new" 20D), and it still delivers great pictures ... and isn't that what a camera is supposed to do?
Just buy another one of Tony's hand-me-downs
Next hand-me-down from me will be ... you guessed it ... my other 20D.
I won't replace it anytime soon as it does the job just fine and the only thing it doesn't have that I want is a self-cleaning sensor. Besides, it's my second-least-used camera these days (in terms of amount of time I spend using it) and least-used (in terms of number of shutter actuations per day - the 40D that usually lives on the 100-400 is seldom used but tends to do a heap of rapid-fire shots when I do pick it up, where with the UWAs on the 20D you are in single-shot mode) - and that means that the new shutter in it should (all else being equal) easily outlast the camera.Also, if I did replace it, the only sensible choice for me would be to get another 40D - and I don't need three cameras all the same. Sometimes I think about a 5D II but half of my lenses won't work on one of those, and the other half would be the wrong focal lengths. (Yeah, yeah, I just totally abused/misused the term "focal length" - I'm too lazy to express that thought correctly. You know what I mean.) So, if I got a 5D II, I'd need to spend a fortune on new glass and still wouldn't be able to replace the 10-17 fish (which I'm very fond of) or the 24-105 (which on a 20D/40D behaves as a 38-170 would on a 5D - given that I have another body with a 10-22 or similar in my bag, the 38-170 equivalent is a brilliant match with lots of reach).
So, most likely upgrade for me will be a 50D (or whatever replaces the 40D). Or, just maybe, Canon will produce a new 1.6 crop body that sits above both the 40D and the Nikon D300. Given their very stong telephoto lens lineup, this would be a no-brainer to retain all those sport and wildlife people who wouldn't mind spending a bit more than a 40D costs and want a sort of poor-man's 1D III. Given the way the D300 sells, this strikes me as an opportunity too good for Canon to miss. Whether it will strike Canon that way or not remains to be seen. But if it does, I'll pop one of those on the 100-400 and retire the 20D.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
T (as Christopher Moltisanti likes to say on the Sopranos), well-reasoned rationale as always. Being also an Olympus user these days, I always hear people waxing about their E-1's and how they miss that glorious Kodak sensor and how 5 MP is just fine, thank you very much.
I acquired a used E-1 a couple months ago for its weather-sealed construction to take with me to Miami and South Beach. While I am irritated by its finicky metering, auto WB, poor flash metering (not just compared to the wonderful Nikon i-TTL system, but to my E-510 as well), and AF reliability (especially in low light, where it is useless), if you get the exposure / WB / focus right, the JPEGs out of the camera are the best I've ever seen. Just about perfect, and exactly how I would want my photos looking after photo editing.
Honestly, it's even better than most Photoshop geeks when it comes to getting just the right tonality, contrast, WB, colours, saturation, depth, shadow detail, and whatever photographic adjective you'd want to use -- and most of those said geeks would admit it too.
Now if Olympus would just give us a better camera but tweak their image processing to replicate the E-1's tone curves and colour response, that would be one heck of a camera. It's easier said than done, though, as part of the image characteristics comes from the sensor itself through its colour response (some people refer to it as its tristimulus response -- basically, what kind of signal does it produce from its R/G/B filtered photosites in response to different colours and levels of light -- as the sensor, in conjunction with the dyes on its Bayer filter, is basically a transfer function for A/D conversion of light). Interestingly, some of those Kodak sensors had 4 colours of dyes (2 different greens) on their Bayer filters to optimize the colour response -- the E-1's sensor being one of those, I think.
I acquired a used E-1 a couple months ago for its weather-sealed construction to take with me to Miami and South Beach. While I am irritated by its finicky metering, auto WB, poor flash metering (not just compared to the wonderful Nikon i-TTL system, but to my E-510 as well), and AF reliability (especially in low light, where it is useless), if you get the exposure / WB / focus right, the JPEGs out of the camera are the best I've ever seen. Just about perfect, and exactly how I would want my photos looking after photo editing.
Honestly, it's even better than most Photoshop geeks when it comes to getting just the right tonality, contrast, WB, colours, saturation, depth, shadow detail, and whatever photographic adjective you'd want to use -- and most of those said geeks would admit it too.
Now if Olympus would just give us a better camera
but tweak their image processing to replicate the E-1's tone curves and colour response, that would be one heck of a camera. It's easier said than done, though, as part of the image characteristics comes from the sensor itself through its colour response (some people refer to it as its tristimulus response -- basically, what kind of signal does it produce from its R/G/B filtered photosites in response to different colours and levels of light -- as the sensor, in conjunction with the dyes on its Bayer filter, is basically a transfer function for A/D conversion of light). Interestingly, some of those Kodak sensors had 4 colours of dyes (2 different greens) on their Bayer filters to optimize the colour response -- the E-1's sensor being one of those, I think.e_dawg
Storage Freak
dd, perhaps you should consider selling all your Canon gear and get a Fuji S5 Pro at a great price these days. They're clearing out the S5 Pro these days for ridiculously low prices. That camera used to cost $2,000. Now it's selling for $1,000 as rumours have been swirling about Fuji's exit from the dSLR game. The way I see it, the S5 Pro should cost more, not less, as the remaining supply in the channel could be the last Fuji dSLRs out there. And what a phenomenal dSLR it is in terms of image quality.
Its dynamic range is easily superior to any APS-C body on the market (about 1-2 stops), and surpasses full-frame sensor bodies like the 5D as well. Not sure how it fares against the new D3. The tonality and colour response of its image processing is outstanding as well.
Again, it comes down to the sensor: Fuji takes a Nikon D200 body and tosses the Sony sensor for their own 6 MP version. Armed with 12 million photosites, it has 6 M photosites dedicated to low light, and 6 M photosites dedicated to bright light. The image processing, tone curves, and exposure bias determines the relative ratio that is used in the final image. This is all captured in the RAW file as well, so you can tweak it at home. Fuji markets it as a 12 MP camera, of course, but it's only about 8 MP effective resolution, which, as Tannin pointed out, enough for most purposes these days.
I started out this post jokingly, but as I finish it, it's taking on a serious tone. I'm not kidding about the image quality of the S5 Pro. It has its performance issues too -- the main one being continuous high-speed shooting (the massive RAW files take forever to clear the buffer if you've been shooting in 400% DR mode) -- but if you don't need a fast camera, the image quality and DR is worth it. Dynamic range and contrast control is still a limiting factor in most APS-C cameras these days when you can't control the lighting (I find it especially useful on vacation when you can't exactly wait for the light or come back to that area if you're only going to be there once on your itinerary; wedding photographers love this camera for obvious reasons), and while many cameras give you incrementally higher resolution, faster performance, better auto metering / WB / AF / etc, none have really addressed the very important characteristic of dynamic range and exposure latitude.
Its dynamic range is easily superior to any APS-C body on the market (about 1-2 stops), and surpasses full-frame sensor bodies like the 5D as well. Not sure how it fares against the new D3. The tonality and colour response of its image processing is outstanding as well.
Again, it comes down to the sensor: Fuji takes a Nikon D200 body and tosses the Sony sensor for their own 6 MP version. Armed with 12 million photosites, it has 6 M photosites dedicated to low light, and 6 M photosites dedicated to bright light. The image processing, tone curves, and exposure bias determines the relative ratio that is used in the final image. This is all captured in the RAW file as well, so you can tweak it at home. Fuji markets it as a 12 MP camera, of course, but it's only about 8 MP effective resolution, which, as Tannin pointed out, enough for most purposes these days.
I started out this post jokingly, but as I finish it, it's taking on a serious tone. I'm not kidding about the image quality of the S5 Pro. It has its performance issues too -- the main one being continuous high-speed shooting (the massive RAW files take forever to clear the buffer if you've been shooting in 400% DR mode) -- but if you don't need a fast camera, the image quality and DR is worth it. Dynamic range and contrast control is still a limiting factor in most APS-C cameras these days when you can't control the lighting (I find it especially useful on vacation when you can't exactly wait for the light or come back to that area if you're only going to be there once on your itinerary; wedding photographers love this camera for obvious reasons), and while many cameras give you incrementally higher resolution, faster performance, better auto metering / WB / AF / etc, none have really addressed the very important characteristic of dynamic range and exposure latitude.
ddrueding
Fixture
Although I would love more dynamic range and exposure latitude (as you put it), I think I'll stick with the big dog for a while. I'm picking up a nice collection of lenses (just 5 so far, with 2 more on the near-term shopping list), and I like the options available to me.
Picking a company that might be leaving the game doesn't appeal, I'll be getting more into photography, not less.
I almost picked up an A710IS while I was out today, and would have if they could supply me with a charged battery. This was the last day of sightseeing, tomorrow is dinner with dad and then we leave.
Picking a company that might be leaving the game doesn't appeal, I'll be getting more into photography, not less.
I almost picked up an A710IS while I was out today, and would have if they could supply me with a charged battery. This was the last day of sightseeing, tomorrow is dinner with dad and then we leave.
Gilbo
Storage is cool
Tokina makes that lens for Pentax (Pentax rebadges it) and I own one too! I completely agree regarding its versatility. It changes from outright fisheye to serious barrel fairly quickly as you move off 10mm and the distortion is easy to correct for if it's not wanted.
I'm actually a very big fan. Compact, light, good image quality and especially useful is its better than average flare resistance for an UW. In terms of flare it's significantly better than my 16-50 and even noticeably better than my 31mm (not that that is even a wide on a K10D).
I also use it in lieu of an ultrawide. Because the 16-50 goes that little extra bit wider than most APS-C standard, fast zooms I don't need the 10-17 that often, but it weighs so little I almost always carry it with me. I don't generally shoot very wide, spending most of my time at 50-150mm (35mm equivalent), but if I do shoot wide it's usually for a dramatic near-far composition that the 10-17 does very well.
Later I'll try & upload a shot or two from it. I have a Flickr account I don't use. I should probably start.
EDIT: Since Pentax uses its own coatings I don't know if the native Tokina versions are as flare resistant, but I suspect they're very close. Fisheye lenses in general have high flare resistance, I guess because rectilinear designs require more complexity, and because with fisheyes they damn well need to be flare resistant - it's going to be nearly impossible to keep the sun out of the frame most of the time.
Why would you spend that much money fixing an obsolete body? Just buy another one of Tony's hand-me-downs
Or maybe one of mine? I have some obsolete gear too - pair of 1Ds MK IIs, 30D, 400D.
Only the 1Ds MK III is not obsolete.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
As I understand it, Gilbo, the 10-17 fisheye it is actually a Pentax design. Pentax and Tokina, apparently, have an arrangement under which Pentax design a lens and Tokina manufacture it. They make one version with the Pentax badge, and another version in the various other mounts (Canon, Nikon, and so on).
The two versions are not always the same: the Pentax 10-17 fish has different metal parts meaning that it looks a bit different. I had assumed that the optical componens were identical, but I didn't stop to wonder if the coatings were the same or not.
I actually have a little bit of a beef with seeing the terms "distortion" and "fisheye" in the same sentence. (You know all this stuff I'm about to say, but your post makes a convenient point on which to hang a rant, I'll say it here anyway.)
As you know, all wideangle lenses have distortion (so do narrower-angle lenses, but it's too small to notice). It is not possible to design a wide angle lens, or even to sensibly imagine one, that does not have some sort of distortion because, at the end of the day, the scene you are photographing is curved while the film in the camera is flat. The problem here is exactly the same problem map makers face when they have to attempt to make flat maps of a spherical planet.
They can either:
(a) S-t-r-e-t-c-h stuff out so that it fits on the paper. (Mercator projection, rectilinear lens.)
(b) Keep everything the right size and accept that the shapes will be distorted. (Various different map projections do this, so does a fisheye lens.)
Whether we are talking world maps or camera lenses, there are only three possibilities:
(a) distort the size
(b) distort the shape
(c) do a bit of both.
So when people unthinkingly say "but what abouut that fisheye distortion?" I get a bit dismissive and scornful - this person, obviously, is either too lazy or too stupid to actually look at a picture taken with a rectilinear wideangle lens and recognise the distortion in it.
Me, I mostly use UWAs for landscapes, typically landscapes with interesting vegetation. Rectilinear UWAs are great fun - that goes without saying - but they do horrible things to what should be magnificent trees.I often find that the shape distortion of a fish is non-obvious, where the size distortion of a rectilinear lens looks horrible. And equally often, of course, I find hte reverse - so it's good to have both.
Flare on the Tokina 10-70 fish is well controlled, though not as well controlled as it is with the Canon 10-22, which is regarded as comfortably the best UWA on the market so far as flare control goes. I too will postsome pics when I get a spare minute. One day. (sigh)
The two versions are not always the same: the Pentax 10-17 fish has different metal parts meaning that it looks a bit different. I had assumed that the optical componens were identical, but I didn't stop to wonder if the coatings were the same or not.
I actually have a little bit of a beef with seeing the terms "distortion" and "fisheye" in the same sentence. (You know all this stuff I'm about to say, but your post makes a convenient point on which to hang a rant, I'll say it here anyway.)
As you know, all wideangle lenses have distortion (so do narrower-angle lenses, but it's too small to notice). It is not possible to design a wide angle lens, or even to sensibly imagine one, that does not have some sort of distortion because, at the end of the day, the scene you are photographing is curved while the film in the camera is flat. The problem here is exactly the same problem map makers face when they have to attempt to make flat maps of a spherical planet.
They can either:
(a) S-t-r-e-t-c-h stuff out so that it fits on the paper. (Mercator projection, rectilinear lens.)
(b) Keep everything the right size and accept that the shapes will be distorted. (Various different map projections do this, so does a fisheye lens.)
Whether we are talking world maps or camera lenses, there are only three possibilities:
(a) distort the size
(b) distort the shape
(c) do a bit of both.
So when people unthinkingly say "but what abouut that fisheye distortion?" I get a bit dismissive and scornful - this person, obviously, is either too lazy or too stupid to actually look at a picture taken with a rectilinear wideangle lens and recognise the distortion in it.
Me, I mostly use UWAs for landscapes, typically landscapes with interesting vegetation. Rectilinear UWAs are great fun - that goes without saying - but they do horrible things to what should be magnificent trees.I often find that the shape distortion of a fish is non-obvious, where the size distortion of a rectilinear lens looks horrible. And equally often, of course, I find hte reverse - so it's good to have both.
Flare on the Tokina 10-70 fish is well controlled, though not as well controlled as it is with the Canon 10-22, which is regarded as comfortably the best UWA on the market so far as flare control goes. I too will postsome pics when I get a spare minute. One day. (sigh)
ddrueding
Fixture
Or maybe one of mine? I have some obsolete gear too - pair of 1Ds MK IIs, 30D, 400D.
Whether in jest or not, I was thinking of making on offer on a 1Ds Mk II. I would really like to be able to make large prints without stitching, but that is a heavy frickin' camera.
Ha! You are a strong young guy, no? I'm easily old enough to be your father and not in good shape, yet I can handle it and a number of lenses up to the 500, though the 400/2.8 or 600/4 are difficult.
Lately I am more into stitching the 1Ds MK III images for 100MP+ landscapes. (Even a GP image is much more practical than only a few years ago.) The problem is that the R2400 and 3800 are not enough to show it all. A large format printer like the 7800 is expensive, bulky and a bit of a hassle for my sporadic printing habits. The 3800 is enough for single shots, since I like to view prints at very close range. Here you can see the limitation of the D3 compared to the 1Ds MK III, though most viewers don't seem to notice or care.
Lately I am more into stitching the 1Ds MK III images for 100MP+ landscapes. (Even a GP image is much more practical than only a few years ago.) The problem is that the R2400 and 3800 are not enough to show it all. A large format printer like the 7800 is expensive, bulky and a bit of a hassle for my sporadic printing habits. The 3800 is enough for single shots, since I like to view prints at very close range. Here you can see the limitation of the D3 compared to the 1Ds MK III, though most viewers don't seem to notice or care.